You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds

Dixon, Victoria, Glover, Hayley K., Winnell, Jodie, Treloar, Shannon M., Whisson, Desley A. and Weston, Michael A. 2009, Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds, Ecological management and restoration, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 156-157, doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00479.x.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
dixon-erratumevaluationofthreeremote-2009.pdf erratum application/pdf 27.93KB 110

Title Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds
Author(s) Dixon, Victoria
Glover, Hayley K.
Winnell, Jodie
Treloar, Shannon M.
Whisson, Desley A.ORCID iD for Whisson, Desley A. orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-0706
Weston, Michael A.ORCID iD for Weston, Michael A. orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-0410
Journal name Ecological management and restoration
Volume number 10
Issue number 2
Start page 156
End page 157
Publisher Blackwell Publishing Asia
Place of publication Carlton South, Vic.
Publication date 2009-08
ISSN 1442-7001
Keyword(s) camera trap
remote cameras
video
passive infrared
active infrared
detectability
Summary Automated camera systems have widespread application in wildlife studies and their use is increasing (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann et al. 2004; Parker et al. 2008). Among other applications, they have been used to produce species inventories, estimate population sizes, study behaviour and examine the impact and activity of predators (Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann et al. 2004). Modern camera systems can operate for extended durations, are relatively non-invasive, easy to operate, portable, durable and can take good-quality images by day and night (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Peterson & Thomas 1998; Allison & Destefano 2006; Parker et al. 2008). Beyond their scientific applications, the generation of high-quality images can be useful for educational and conservation purposes (Cutler & Swann 1999). The two most common types of systems currently used in ecological research are passive and active infrared (IR) systems (Cutler & Swann 1999; Parker et al. 2008). An older form of remote photography is video which captures a continuous record of activity at a focal site (Stewart et al.1997; King et al. 2001). Camera systems have certain limitations and biases (Swann et al. 2004), yet these have not been well studied. Refinement of the use of camera systems is required to fully realize their value (Towerton et al. 2008). Here, we describe a comparison of detection rates of mammals and birds by passive and active IR camera systems, using a video system to benchmark detection rates.
Language eng
DOI 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00479.x
Field of Research 050206 Environmental Monitoring
Socio Economic Objective 960404 Control of Animal Pests, Diseases and Exotic Species in Forest and Woodlands Environments
HERDC Research category C4 Letter or note
Copyright notice ©2009, Ecological Society of Australia
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30028361

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 8 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 531 Abstract Views, 114 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 16 Apr 2010, 15:37:26 EST by Teresa Treffry

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.